Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 621

control, N = 311

treatment, N = 311

p-value2

age

62

50.77 ± 12.57 (25 - 74)

50.28 ± 13.07 (25 - 74)

51.27 ± 12.25 (31 - 72)

0.761

gender

62

0.783

f

43 (69%)

21 (68%)

22 (71%)

m

19 (31%)

10 (32%)

9 (29%)

occupation

62

0.951

day_training

1 (1.6%)

1 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

full_time

6 (9.7%)

4 (13%)

2 (6.5%)

homemaker

6 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

other

2 (3.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (6.5%)

part_time

10 (16%)

5 (16%)

5 (16%)

retired

15 (24%)

7 (23%)

8 (26%)

self_employ

2 (3.2%)

1 (3.2%)

1 (3.2%)

student

1 (1.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.2%)

t_and_e

2 (3.2%)

1 (3.2%)

1 (3.2%)

unemploy

17 (27%)

9 (29%)

8 (26%)

marital

62

>0.999

cohabitation

1 (1.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.2%)

divore

5 (8.1%)

3 (9.7%)

2 (6.5%)

married

14 (23%)

7 (23%)

7 (23%)

none

36 (58%)

18 (58%)

18 (58%)

seperation

3 (4.8%)

2 (6.5%)

1 (3.2%)

widow

3 (4.8%)

1 (3.2%)

2 (6.5%)

edu

62

0.992

bachelor

19 (31%)

9 (29%)

10 (32%)

diploma

10 (16%)

6 (19%)

4 (13%)

hd_ad

3 (4.8%)

2 (6.5%)

1 (3.2%)

postgraduate

6 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

primary

5 (8.1%)

2 (6.5%)

3 (9.7%)

secondary_1_3

4 (6.5%)

2 (6.5%)

2 (6.5%)

secondary_4_5

14 (23%)

7 (23%)

7 (23%)

secondary_6_7

1 (1.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (3.2%)

fam_income

62

0.899

10001_12000

3 (4.8%)

1 (3.2%)

2 (6.5%)

12001_14000

4 (6.5%)

2 (6.5%)

2 (6.5%)

14001_16000

5 (8.1%)

2 (6.5%)

3 (9.7%)

16001_18000

2 (3.2%)

1 (3.2%)

1 (3.2%)

18001_20000

3 (4.8%)

3 (9.7%)

0 (0%)

20001_above

9 (15%)

6 (19%)

3 (9.7%)

2001_4000

6 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

4001_6000

9 (15%)

4 (13%)

5 (16%)

6001_8000

6 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

3 (9.7%)

8001_10000

6 (9.7%)

2 (6.5%)

4 (13%)

below_2000

9 (15%)

4 (13%)

5 (16%)

medication

62

52 (84%)

27 (87%)

25 (81%)

0.490

onset_duration

62

15.34 ± 11.97 (0 - 56)

17.35 ± 13.20 (1 - 56)

13.32 ± 10.43 (0 - 35)

0.187

onset_age

62

35.44 ± 13.56 (15 - 64)

32.93 ± 11.96 (16 - 55)

37.94 ± 14.76 (15 - 64)

0.147

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 621

control, N = 311

treatment, N = 311

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

62

3.26 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.26 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.26 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

>0.999

recovery_stage_b

62

17.95 ± 2.59 (9 - 23)

17.84 ± 2.79 (9 - 23)

18.06 ± 2.41 (14 - 23)

0.734

ras_confidence

62

30.27 ± 4.59 (19 - 40)

29.81 ± 4.21 (19 - 40)

30.74 ± 4.96 (20 - 39)

0.427

ras_willingness

62

12.05 ± 1.99 (7 - 15)

11.90 ± 1.83 (9 - 15)

12.19 ± 2.15 (7 - 15)

0.569

ras_goal

62

17.40 ± 2.79 (12 - 24)

17.48 ± 2.64 (12 - 23)

17.32 ± 2.97 (12 - 24)

0.822

ras_reliance

62

13.23 ± 2.85 (8 - 20)

13.03 ± 2.64 (8 - 18)

13.42 ± 3.07 (8 - 20)

0.597

ras_domination

62

10.06 ± 2.22 (3 - 15)

10.61 ± 1.89 (7 - 15)

9.52 ± 2.42 (3 - 14)

0.051

symptom

62

30.06 ± 9.61 (14 - 56)

30.00 ± 9.11 (14 - 48)

30.13 ± 10.22 (15 - 56)

0.958

slof_work

62

22.31 ± 4.81 (10 - 30)

22.45 ± 4.38 (15 - 30)

22.16 ± 5.27 (10 - 30)

0.814

slof_relationship

62

25.60 ± 5.91 (11 - 35)

25.42 ± 5.99 (13 - 35)

25.77 ± 5.93 (11 - 35)

0.815

satisfaction

62

20.84 ± 6.33 (5 - 30)

19.52 ± 5.91 (5 - 29)

22.16 ± 6.55 (5 - 30)

0.100

mhc_emotional

62

11.31 ± 3.65 (4 - 18)

11.10 ± 3.07 (6 - 17)

11.52 ± 4.19 (4 - 18)

0.654

mhc_social

62

14.53 ± 5.01 (6 - 26)

14.84 ± 5.07 (7 - 26)

14.23 ± 5.02 (6 - 23)

0.634

mhc_psychological

62

21.95 ± 5.82 (6 - 36)

21.61 ± 5.55 (10 - 33)

22.29 ± 6.15 (6 - 36)

0.650

resilisnce

62

16.55 ± 4.57 (6 - 25)

16.29 ± 4.63 (6 - 24)

16.81 ± 4.58 (7 - 25)

0.660

social_provision

62

13.65 ± 2.96 (5 - 20)

13.35 ± 2.64 (8 - 20)

13.94 ± 3.28 (5 - 19)

0.445

els_value_living

62

17.19 ± 2.91 (5 - 23)

16.71 ± 2.47 (12 - 22)

17.68 ± 3.26 (5 - 23)

0.192

els_life_fulfill

62

12.77 ± 3.21 (4 - 18)

11.77 ± 3.06 (5 - 17)

13.77 ± 3.07 (4 - 18)

0.013

els

62

29.97 ± 5.41 (9 - 40)

28.48 ± 4.48 (20 - 36)

31.45 ± 5.92 (9 - 40)

0.030

social_connect

62

27.00 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)

27.26 ± 7.95 (8 - 45)

26.74 ± 10.48 (8 - 48)

0.828

shs_agency

62

14.32 ± 4.58 (3 - 21)

13.61 ± 4.24 (3 - 20)

15.03 ± 4.85 (3 - 21)

0.225

shs_pathway

62

16.55 ± 3.70 (4 - 22)

16.03 ± 3.41 (8 - 22)

17.06 ± 3.95 (4 - 22)

0.275

shs

62

30.87 ± 7.71 (7 - 42)

29.65 ± 7.22 (14 - 41)

32.10 ± 8.11 (7 - 42)

0.214

esteem

62

12.52 ± 1.21 (10 - 15)

12.58 ± 1.12 (10 - 14)

12.45 ± 1.31 (10 - 15)

0.678

mlq_search

62

14.87 ± 3.42 (3 - 21)

14.97 ± 3.25 (6 - 21)

14.77 ± 3.63 (3 - 20)

0.826

mlq_presence

62

13.52 ± 4.05 (3 - 21)

13.65 ± 3.34 (6 - 20)

13.39 ± 4.71 (3 - 21)

0.804

mlq

62

28.39 ± 6.63 (6 - 41)

28.61 ± 5.87 (12 - 40)

28.16 ± 7.40 (6 - 41)

0.791

empower

62

19.63 ± 4.20 (6 - 28)

19.32 ± 3.87 (11 - 24)

19.94 ± 4.55 (6 - 28)

0.570

ismi_resistance

62

14.61 ± 2.71 (5 - 20)

14.48 ± 2.26 (11 - 19)

14.74 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)

0.711

ismi_discrimation

62

11.40 ± 3.36 (5 - 19)

12.35 ± 2.92 (5 - 18)

10.45 ± 3.55 (5 - 19)

0.025

sss_affective

62

10.02 ± 3.97 (3 - 18)

10.65 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)

9.39 ± 4.40 (3 - 18)

0.215

sss_behavior

62

9.76 ± 4.06 (3 - 18)

10.58 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

8.94 ± 4.05 (3 - 18)

0.111

sss_cognitive

62

8.35 ± 4.10 (3 - 18)

8.68 ± 4.28 (3 - 18)

8.03 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)

0.540

sss

62

28.13 ± 11.25 (9 - 54)

29.90 ± 10.38 (9 - 54)

26.35 ± 11.95 (9 - 54)

0.217

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.26

0.218

2.83, 3.68

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.000

0.308

-0.603, 0.603

1.00

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.254

0.339

-0.410, 0.918

0.457

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.047

0.463

-0.861, 0.955

0.920

Pseudo R square

0.012

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.8

0.486

16.9, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.226

0.687

-1.12, 1.57

0.743

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.100

0.686

-1.44, 1.24

0.884

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.540

0.935

-1.29, 2.37

0.567

Pseudo R square

0.009

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.886

28.1, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.935

1.254

-1.52, 3.39

0.458

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.496

0.979

-1.42, 2.42

0.615

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.065

1.331

-2.54, 2.67

0.961

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.364

11.2, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.290

0.515

-0.718, 1.30

0.574

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.839

0.360

-1.55, -0.133

0.026

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.665

0.489

-0.294, 1.62

0.182

Pseudo R square

0.034

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.548

16.4, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.161

0.775

-1.68, 1.36

0.836

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.849

0.618

-2.06, 0.361

0.176

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.50

0.840

-0.144, 3.15

0.081

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.505

12.0, 14.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.387

0.714

-1.01, 1.79

0.589

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.242

0.465

-0.669, 1.15

0.605

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.744

0.631

-0.493, 1.98

0.246

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.6

0.395

9.84, 11.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.10

0.559

-2.19, -0.002

0.053

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.537

0.539

-1.59, 0.519

0.324

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.34

0.734

-0.102, 2.78

0.076

Pseudo R square

0.041

symptom

(Intercept)

30.0

1.745

26.6, 33.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.129

2.468

-4.71, 4.97

0.958

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.684

1.265

-3.16, 1.80

0.592

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.121

1.716

-3.48, 3.24

0.944

Pseudo R square

0.001

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.873

20.7, 24.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.290

1.234

-2.71, 2.13

0.815

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.123

0.706

-1.51, 1.26

0.863

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.17

0.957

-3.05, 0.703

0.229

Pseudo R square

0.014

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.4

1.062

23.3, 27.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.355

1.502

-2.59, 3.30

0.814

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.20

1.007

-3.18, 0.772

0.241

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.592

1.368

-2.09, 3.27

0.668

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.5

1.189

17.2, 21.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.65

1.682

-0.651, 5.94

0.120

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.871

1.367

-1.81, 3.55

0.528

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.72

1.859

-5.37, 1.92

0.360

Pseudo R square

0.027

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

11.1

0.657

9.81, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.419

0.929

-1.40, 2.24

0.653

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.692

0.635

-0.553, 1.94

0.283

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.26

0.862

-2.95, 0.433

0.154

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.8

0.946

13.0, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.613

1.338

-3.24, 2.01

0.648

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.26

1.066

-0.834, 3.35

0.246

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.40

1.449

-4.24, 1.44

0.340

Pseudo R square

0.016

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

1.111

19.4, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.677

1.571

-2.40, 3.76

0.668

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.979

1.182

-1.34, 3.29

0.413

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.12

1.605

-5.27, 1.03

0.195

Pseudo R square

0.007

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.791

14.7, 17.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.516

1.119

-1.68, 2.71

0.646

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.540

0.757

-0.943, 2.02

0.480

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.160

1.027

-1.85, 2.17

0.877

Pseudo R square

0.009

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.4

0.523

12.3, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.581

0.740

-0.870, 2.03

0.435

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.417

0.574

-1.54, 0.708

0.472

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.273

0.780

-1.26, 1.80

0.728

Pseudo R square

0.015

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.7

0.522

15.7, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.968

0.738

-0.479, 2.41

0.194

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.627

0.547

-0.446, 1.70

0.259

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.487

0.743

-1.94, 0.970

0.516

Pseudo R square

0.025

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.536

10.7, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.00

0.758

0.515, 3.49

0.010

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.15

0.572

0.025, 2.27

0.053

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.929

0.778

-2.45, 0.595

0.240

Pseudo R square

0.090

els

(Intercept)

28.5

0.939

26.6, 30.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.97

1.328

0.366, 5.57

0.029

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.70

0.925

-0.116, 3.51

0.074

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.34

1.257

-3.80, 1.12

0.294

Pseudo R square

0.067

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.3

1.634

24.1, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.516

2.311

-5.05, 4.01

0.824

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.598

1.333

-2.02, 3.21

0.657

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.501

1.809

-4.05, 3.04

0.783

Pseudo R square

0.002

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.6

0.826

12.0, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.42

1.169

-0.871, 3.71

0.229

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.380

0.856

-1.30, 2.06

0.659

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.239

1.163

-2.04, 2.52

0.838

Pseudo R square

0.030

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.656

14.7, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.03

0.928

-0.787, 2.85

0.270

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.582

0.599

-0.592, 1.76

0.338

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.735

0.813

-2.33, 0.858

0.372

Pseudo R square

0.014

shs

(Intercept)

29.6

1.377

26.9, 32.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.45

1.948

-1.37, 6.27

0.212

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.911

1.284

-1.61, 3.43

0.483

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.420

1.743

-3.84, 3.00

0.811

Pseudo R square

0.025

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.217

12.2, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.129

0.307

-0.731, 0.473

0.676

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.600

0.373

-0.132, 1.33

0.115

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.323

0.513

-1.33, 0.682

0.532

Pseudo R square

0.040

mlq_search

(Intercept)

15.0

0.619

13.8, 16.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.194

0.876

-1.91, 1.52

0.826

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.045

0.799

-1.61, 1.52

0.956

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.044

1.088

-2.18, 2.09

0.968

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.6

0.720

12.2, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.258

1.018

-2.25, 1.74

0.801

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.017

0.885

-1.72, 1.75

0.985

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.113

1.204

-2.25, 2.47

0.926

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.6

1.213

26.2, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.452

1.716

-3.81, 2.91

0.793

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.036

1.512

-3.00, 2.93

0.981

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.064

2.058

-3.97, 4.10

0.975

Pseudo R square

0.001

empower

(Intercept)

19.3

0.726

17.9, 20.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.613

1.027

-1.40, 2.63

0.553

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.132

0.710

-1.26, 1.52

0.853

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.851

0.965

-2.74, 1.04

0.384

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.461

13.6, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.258

0.652

-1.02, 1.54

0.693

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.549

0.658

-0.742, 1.84

0.409

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.630

0.898

-2.39, 1.13

0.487

Pseudo R square

0.005

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.591

11.2, 13.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.90

0.836

-3.54, -0.264

0.026

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.960

0.595

-2.13, 0.206

0.115

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.50

0.808

-0.085, 3.08

0.072

Pseudo R square

0.054

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.685

9.30, 12.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.26

0.969

-3.16, 0.641

0.198

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.020

0.599

-1.15, 1.20

0.973

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.852

0.813

-2.45, 0.742

0.302

Pseudo R square

0.046

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.6

0.694

9.22, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.65

0.982

-3.57, 0.279

0.098

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.300

0.648

-1.57, 0.970

0.646

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.377

0.880

-2.10, 1.35

0.671

Pseudo R square

0.056

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.68

0.725

7.26, 10.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.645

1.025

-2.65, 1.36

0.531

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.855

0.609

-0.339, 2.05

0.169

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.65

0.826

-3.27, -0.035

0.053

Pseudo R square

0.032

sss

(Intercept)

29.9

1.948

26.1, 33.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.55

2.755

-8.95, 1.85

0.202

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.645

1.538

-2.37, 3.66

0.678

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.94

2.086

-7.03, 1.14

0.167

Pseudo R square

0.049

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.26 (95% CI [2.83, 3.68], t(89) = 14.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.18e-15, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.60], t(89) = 2.01e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = -9.11e-17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.92], t(89) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.76])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.95], t(89) = 0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.84 (95% CI [16.89, 18.79], t(89) = 36.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.57], t(89) = 0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.24], t(89) = -0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.37], t(89) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.88])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.81 (95% CI [28.07, 31.54], t(89) = 33.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.52, 3.39], t(89) = 0.75, p = 0.456; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.42], t(89) = 0.51, p = 0.612; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.54, 2.67], t(89) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.90 (95% CI [11.19, 12.62], t(89) = 32.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.30], t(89) = 0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.55, -0.13], t(89) = -2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.77, -0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.62], t(89) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.41, 18.56], t(89) = 31.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.36], t(89) = -0.21, p = 0.835; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.36], t(89) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.14, 3.15], t(89) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.03 (95% CI [12.04, 14.02], t(89) = 25.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.79], t(89) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(89) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.98], t(89) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.61 (95% CI [9.84, 11.39], t(89) = 26.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-2.19, -1.71e-03], t(89) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-0.99, -7.72e-04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.52], t(89) = -1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.78], t(89) = 1.82, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.00 (95% CI [26.58, 33.42], t(89) = 17.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-4.71, 4.97], t(89) = 0.05, p = 0.958; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-3.16, 1.80], t(89) = -0.54, p = 0.589; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-3.48, 3.24], t(89) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.45 (95% CI [20.74, 24.16], t(89) = 25.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.71, 2.13], t(89) = -0.24, p = 0.814; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.26], t(89) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.70], t(89) = -1.23, p = 0.220; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.42 (95% CI [23.34, 27.50], t(89) = 23.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.59, 3.30], t(89) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-3.18, 0.77], t(89) = -1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.27], t(89) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.52 (95% CI [17.19, 21.85], t(89) = 16.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.65, 95% CI [-0.65, 5.94], t(89) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.89])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.81, 3.55], t(89) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-5.37, 1.92], t(89) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.10 (95% CI [9.81, 12.38], t(89) = 16.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.24], t(89) = 0.45, p = 0.652; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.94], t(89) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.95, 0.43], t(89) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [12.98, 16.69], t(89) = 15.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-3.24, 2.01], t(89) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.83, 3.35], t(89) = 1.18, p = 0.239; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-4.24, 1.44], t(89) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.80e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.61 (95% CI [19.44, 23.79], t(89) = 19.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-2.40, 3.76], t(89) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-1.34, 3.29], t(89) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.12, 95% CI [-5.27, 1.03], t(89) = -1.32, p = 0.187; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [14.74, 17.84], t(89) = 20.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.71], t(89) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.62])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.02], t(89) = 0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.17], t(89) = 0.16, p = 0.877; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.35 (95% CI [12.33, 14.38], t(89) = 25.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.03], t(89) = 0.78, p = 0.433; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.70])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.71], t(89) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.80], t(89) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.71 (95% CI [15.69, 17.73], t(89) = 32.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.41], t(89) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.70], t(89) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.94, 0.97], t(89) = -0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.77 (95% CI [10.72, 12.82], t(89) = 21.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.00, 95% CI [0.51, 3.49], t(89) = 2.64, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.17, 1.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [0.03, 2.27], t(89) = 2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [8.08e-03, 0.73])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.59], t(89) = -1.19, p = 0.232; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.48 (95% CI [26.64, 30.32], t(89) = 30.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.97, 95% CI [0.37, 5.57], t(89) = 2.24, p = 0.025; Std. beta = 0.54, 95% CI [0.07, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 3.51], t(89) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.80, 1.12], t(89) = -1.07, p = 0.287; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.26 (95% CI [24.06, 30.46], t(89) = 16.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-5.05, 4.01], t(89) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.02, 3.21], t(89) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-4.05, 3.04], t(89) = -0.28, p = 0.782; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.61 (95% CI [11.99, 15.23], t(89) = 16.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [-0.87, 3.71], t(89) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.80])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.06], t(89) = 0.44, p = 0.657; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.04, 2.52], t(89) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.03 (95% CI [14.75, 17.32], t(89) = 24.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.85], t(89) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.76], t(89) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-2.33, 0.86], t(89) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.65 (95% CI [26.95, 32.34], t(89) = 21.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.45, 95% CI [-1.37, 6.27], t(89) = 1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.81])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.43], t(89) = 0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-3.84, 3.00], t(89) = -0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [12.15, 13.01], t(89) = 57.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.47], t(89) = -0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.33], t(89) = 1.61, p = 0.108; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.68], t(89) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.97 (95% CI [13.75, 16.18], t(89) = 24.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.52], t(89) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.52], t(89) = -0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.09], t(89) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.61e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.65 (95% CI [12.23, 15.06], t(89) = 18.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.74], t(89) = -0.25, p = 0.800; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.72, 1.75], t(89) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 4.33e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.47], t(89) = 0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.02e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.61 (95% CI [26.23, 30.99], t(89) = 23.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.81, 2.91], t(89) = -0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.93], t(89) = -0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = -5.35e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-3.97, 4.10], t(89) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 9.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.36e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.32 (95% CI [17.90, 20.75], t(89) = 26.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.63], t(89) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.52], t(89) = 0.19, p = 0.852; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.04], t(89) = -0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.58, 15.39], t(89) = 31.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.54], t(89) = 0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.84], t(89) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.72])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.39, 1.13], t(89) = -0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.35 (95% CI [11.20, 13.51], t(89) = 20.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.90, 95% CI [-3.54, -0.26], t(89) = -2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.21], t(89) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.08], t(89) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.93])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.30, 11.99], t(89) = 15.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.26, 95% CI [-3.16, 0.64], t(89) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.20], t(89) = 0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = 5.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.45, 0.74], t(89) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.58 (95% CI [9.22, 11.94], t(89) = 15.24, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.28], t(89) = -1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.97], t(89) = -0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.35], t(89) = -0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.68 (95% CI [7.26, 10.10], t(89) = 11.97, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.65, 1.36], t(89) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.05], t(89) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-3.27, -0.03], t(89) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.82, -8.70e-03])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.90 (95% CI [26.09, 33.72], t(89) = 15.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.55, 95% CI [-8.95, 1.85], t(89) = -1.29, p = 0.198; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-2.37, 3.66], t(89) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-7.03, 1.14], t(89) = -1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

306.892

314.554

-150.446

300.892

recovery_stage_a

random

6

311.361

326.684

-149.680

299.361

1.532

3

0.675

recovery_stage_b

null

3

454.483

462.144

-224.241

448.483

recovery_stage_b

random

6

459.539

474.862

-223.769

447.539

0.944

3

0.815

ras_confidence

null

3

555.881

563.542

-274.940

549.881

ras_confidence

random

6

560.526

575.850

-274.263

548.526

1.355

3

0.716

ras_willingness

null

3

384.834

392.495

-189.417

378.834

ras_willingness

random

6

384.832

400.155

-186.416

372.832

6.002

3

0.112

ras_goal

null

3

467.755

475.417

-230.878

461.755

ras_goal

random

6

470.360

485.683

-229.180

458.360

3.395

3

0.335

ras_reliance

null

3

442.928

450.590

-218.464

436.928

ras_reliance

random

6

442.514

457.837

-215.257

430.514

6.414

3

0.093

ras_domination

null

3

418.051

425.713

-206.025

412.051

ras_domination

random

6

418.636

433.959

-203.318

406.636

5.415

3

0.144

symptom

null

3

658.083

665.745

-326.042

652.083

symptom

random

6

663.270

678.594

-325.635

651.270

0.813

3

0.846

slof_work

null

3

536.782

544.444

-265.391

530.782

slof_work

random

6

538.459

553.782

-263.230

526.459

4.323

3

0.229

slof_relationship

null

3

581.655

589.317

-287.828

575.655

slof_relationship

random

6

585.707

601.030

-286.853

573.707

1.948

3

0.583

satisfaction

null

3

615.408

623.069

-304.704

609.408

satisfaction

random

6

618.655

633.978

-303.327

606.655

2.753

3

0.431

mhc_emotional

null

3

491.754

499.416

-242.877

485.754

mhc_emotional

random

6

495.582

510.905

-241.791

483.582

2.172

3

0.537

mhc_social

null

3

570.166

577.828

-282.083

564.166

mhc_social

random

6

574.080

589.404

-281.040

562.080

2.086

3

0.555

mhc_psychological

null

3

597.021

604.683

-295.511

591.021

mhc_psychological

random

6

601.179

616.502

-294.589

589.179

1.842

3

0.606

resilisnce

null

3

526.176

533.837

-260.088

520.176

resilisnce

random

6

530.289

545.612

-259.144

518.289

1.887

3

0.596

social_provision

null

3

455.501

463.163

-224.751

449.501

social_provision

random

6

460.007

475.331

-224.004

448.007

1.494

3

0.684

els_value_living

null

3

453.663

461.324

-223.831

447.663

els_value_living

random

6

456.760

472.083

-222.380

444.760

2.903

3

0.407

els_life_fulfill

null

3

466.833

474.494

-230.416

460.833

els_life_fulfill

random

6

462.873

478.196

-225.437

450.873

9.959

3

0.019

els

null

3

566.409

574.070

-280.204

560.409

els

random

6

564.615

579.938

-276.307

552.615

7.794

3

0.050

social_connect

null

3

652.524

660.186

-323.262

646.524

social_connect

random

6

658.219

673.542

-323.109

646.219

0.305

3

0.959

shs_agency

null

3

540.085

547.747

-267.043

534.085

shs_agency

random

6

543.374

558.698

-265.687

531.374

2.711

3

0.438

shs_pathway

null

3

487.832

495.494

-240.916

481.832

shs_pathway

random

6

491.892

507.215

-239.946

479.892

1.941

3

0.585

shs

null

3

630.313

637.974

-312.156

624.313

shs

random

6

634.007

649.330

-311.003

622.007

2.306

3

0.511

esteem

null

3

311.657

319.319

-152.829

305.657

esteem

random

6

313.656

328.979

-150.828

301.656

4.001

3

0.261

mlq_search

null

3

495.258

502.920

-244.629

489.258

mlq_search

random

6

501.170

516.493

-244.585

489.170

0.088

3

0.993

mlq_presence

null

3

521.232

528.894

-257.616

515.232

mlq_presence

random

6

527.150

542.473

-257.575

515.150

0.082

3

0.994

mlq

null

3

621.119

628.781

-307.560

615.119

mlq

random

6

627.044

642.367

-307.522

615.044

0.076

3

0.995

empower

null

3

510.777

518.438

-252.388

504.777

empower

random

6

515.343

530.666

-251.671

503.343

1.434

3

0.698

ismi_resistance

null

3

445.001

452.662

-219.500

439.001

ismi_resistance

random

6

450.253

465.576

-219.127

438.253

0.747

3

0.862

ismi_discrimation

null

3

479.096

486.758

-236.548

473.096

ismi_discrimation

random

6

478.055

493.378

-233.027

466.055

7.041

3

0.071

sss_affective

null

3

496.363

504.025

-245.182

490.363

sss_affective

random

6

497.401

512.724

-242.701

485.401

4.962

3

0.175

sss_behavior

null

3

502.991

510.652

-248.495

496.991

sss_behavior

random

6

503.926

519.250

-245.963

491.926

5.064

3

0.167

sss_cognitive

null

3

504.780

512.441

-249.390

498.780

sss_cognitive

random

6

505.580

520.904

-246.790

493.580

5.199

3

0.158

sss

null

3

689.093

696.754

-341.546

683.093

sss

random

6

689.510

704.833

-338.755

677.510

5.583

3

0.134

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

31

3.26 ± 1.21

31

3.26 ± 1.21

1.000

0.000

recovery_stage_a

2nd

15

3.51 ± 1.20

-0.247

18

3.56 ± 1.21

-0.293

0.912

-0.045

recovery_stage_b

1st

31

17.84 ± 2.70

31

18.06 ± 2.70

0.743

-0.111

recovery_stage_b

2nd

15

17.74 ± 2.60

0.049

18

18.50 ± 2.62

-0.216

0.403

-0.377

ras_confidence

1st

31

29.81 ± 4.94

31

30.74 ± 4.94

0.458

-0.334

ras_confidence

2nd

15

30.30 ± 4.33

-0.177

18

31.30 ± 4.45

-0.200

0.516

-0.357

ras_willingness

1st

31

11.90 ± 2.03

31

12.19 ± 2.03

0.575

-0.284

ras_willingness

2nd

15

11.06 ± 1.72

0.822

18

12.02 ± 1.78

0.170

0.121

-0.936

ras_goal

1st

31

17.48 ± 3.05

31

17.32 ± 3.05

0.836

0.091

ras_goal

2nd

15

16.63 ± 2.70

0.480

18

17.98 ± 2.77

-0.369

0.164

-0.758

ras_reliance

1st

31

13.03 ± 2.81

31

13.42 ± 2.81

0.589

-0.295

ras_reliance

2nd

15

13.27 ± 2.33

-0.185

18

14.41 ± 2.43

-0.752

0.177

-0.863

ras_domination

1st

31

10.61 ± 2.20

31

9.52 ± 2.20

0.053

0.692

ras_domination

2nd

15

10.08 ± 2.09

0.339

18

10.32 ± 2.11

-0.505

0.743

-0.152

symptom

1st

31

30.00 ± 9.72

31

30.13 ± 9.72

0.958

-0.037

symptom

2nd

15

29.32 ± 7.61

0.194

18

29.32 ± 8.04

0.228

0.998

-0.002

slof_work

1st

31

22.45 ± 4.86

31

22.16 ± 4.86

0.815

0.147

slof_work

2nd

15

22.33 ± 3.90

0.062

18

20.87 ± 4.09

0.656

0.297

0.741

slof_relationship

1st

31

25.42 ± 5.91

31

25.77 ± 5.91

0.814

-0.125

slof_relationship

2nd

15

24.22 ± 4.95

0.423

18

25.16 ± 5.14

0.215

0.592

-0.333

satisfaction

1st

31

19.52 ± 6.62

31

22.16 ± 6.62

0.120

-0.674

satisfaction

2nd

15

20.39 ± 5.90

-0.222

18

21.31 ± 6.04

0.217

0.659

-0.235

mhc_emotional

1st

31

11.10 ± 3.66

31

11.52 ± 3.66

0.653

-0.233

mhc_emotional

2nd

15

11.79 ± 3.08

-0.385

18

10.95 ± 3.19

0.315

0.446

0.466

mhc_social

1st

31

14.84 ± 5.27

31

14.23 ± 5.27

0.648

0.201

mhc_social

2nd

15

16.09 ± 4.66

-0.411

18

14.08 ± 4.78

0.048

0.225

0.659

mhc_psychological

1st

31

21.61 ± 6.19

31

22.29 ± 6.19

0.668

-0.201

mhc_psychological

2nd

15

22.59 ± 5.36

-0.291

18

21.15 ± 5.53

0.339

0.450

0.429

resilisnce

1st

31

16.29 ± 4.41

31

16.81 ± 4.41

0.646

-0.241

resilisnce

2nd

15

16.83 ± 3.69

-0.252

18

17.51 ± 3.84

-0.327

0.609

-0.316

social_provision

1st

31

13.35 ± 2.91

31

13.94 ± 2.91

0.435

-0.354

social_provision

2nd

15

12.94 ± 2.55

0.254

18

13.79 ± 2.62

0.087

0.347

-0.520

els_value_living

1st

31

16.71 ± 2.91

31

17.68 ± 2.91

0.194

-0.621

els_value_living

2nd

15

17.34 ± 2.51

-0.402

18

17.82 ± 2.59

-0.089

0.590

-0.309

els_life_fulfill

1st

31

11.77 ± 2.98

31

13.77 ± 2.98

0.010

-1.226

els_life_fulfill

2nd

15

12.92 ± 2.59

-0.703

18

13.99 ± 2.67

-0.133

0.246

-0.657

els

1st

31

28.48 ± 5.23

31

31.45 ± 5.23

0.029

-1.132

els

2nd

15

30.18 ± 4.42

-0.648

18

31.81 ± 4.59

-0.137

0.303

-0.621

social_connect

1st

31

27.26 ± 9.10

31

26.74 ± 9.10

0.824

0.138

social_connect

2nd

15

27.86 ± 7.31

-0.160

18

26.84 ± 7.68

-0.026

0.698

0.272

shs_agency

1st

31

13.61 ± 4.60

31

15.03 ± 4.60

0.229

-0.583

shs_agency

2nd

15

13.99 ± 3.96

-0.156

18

15.65 ± 4.08

-0.255

0.240

-0.681

shs_pathway

1st

31

16.03 ± 3.65

31

17.06 ± 3.65

0.270

-0.612

shs_pathway

2nd

15

16.61 ± 3.02

-0.345

18

16.91 ± 3.15

0.091

0.784

-0.176

shs

1st

31

29.65 ± 7.67

31

32.10 ± 7.67

0.212

-0.677

shs

2nd

15

30.56 ± 6.38

-0.251

18

32.59 ± 6.64

-0.136

0.374

-0.561

esteem

1st

31

12.58 ± 1.21

31

12.45 ± 1.21

0.676

0.110

esteem

2nd

15

13.18 ± 1.23

-0.510

18

12.73 ± 1.23

-0.236

0.295

0.384

mlq_search

1st

31

14.97 ± 3.45

31

14.77 ± 3.45

0.826

0.083

mlq_search

2nd

15

14.92 ± 3.20

0.019

18

14.69 ± 3.25

0.038

0.833

0.102

mlq_presence

1st

31

13.65 ± 4.01

31

13.39 ± 4.01

0.801

0.101

mlq_presence

2nd

15

13.66 ± 3.66

-0.007

18

13.52 ± 3.73

-0.051

0.910

0.057

mlq

1st

31

28.61 ± 6.76

31

28.16 ± 6.76

0.793

0.103

mlq

2nd

15

28.58 ± 6.19

0.008

18

28.19 ± 6.30

-0.006

0.859

0.088

empower

1st

31

19.32 ± 4.04

31

19.94 ± 4.04

0.553

-0.305

empower

2nd

15

19.45 ± 3.41

-0.066

18

19.22 ± 3.54

0.358

0.845

0.119

ismi_resistance

1st

31

14.48 ± 2.57

31

14.74 ± 2.57

0.693

-0.132

ismi_resistance

2nd

15

15.03 ± 2.48

-0.281

18

14.66 ± 2.49

0.042

0.669

0.190

ismi_discrimation

1st

31

12.35 ± 3.29

31

10.45 ± 3.29

0.026

1.128

ismi_discrimation

2nd

15

11.39 ± 2.80

0.569

18

10.99 ± 2.90

-0.319

0.686

0.240

sss_affective

1st

31

10.65 ± 3.81

31

9.39 ± 3.81

0.199

0.747

sss_affective

2nd

15

10.67 ± 3.12

-0.012

18

8.56 ± 3.26

0.494

0.061

1.253

sss_behavior

1st

31

10.58 ± 3.86

31

8.94 ± 3.86

0.098

0.900

sss_behavior

2nd

15

10.28 ± 3.22

0.164

18

8.26 ± 3.35

0.370

0.081

1.106

sss_cognitive

1st

31

8.68 ± 4.04

31

8.03 ± 4.04

0.531

0.378

sss_cognitive

2nd

15

9.53 ± 3.27

-0.501

18

7.23 ± 3.42

0.468

0.052

1.347

sss

1st

31

29.90 ± 10.84

31

26.35 ± 10.84

0.202

0.825

sss

2nd

15

30.55 ± 8.65

-0.150

18

24.06 ± 9.10

0.535

0.039

1.510

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(86.50) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.61 to 0.61)

2st

t(90.50) = 0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.79 to 0.88)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(81.12) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.59)

2st

t(90.40) = 0.84, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.04 to 2.58)

ras_confidence

1st

t(71.48) = 0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.43)

2st

t(90.95) = 0.65, p = 0.516, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 4.05)

ras_willingness

1st

t(68.83) = 0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.32)

2st

t(90.20) = 1.57, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.17)

ras_goal

1st

t(72.04) = -0.21, p = 0.836, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.38)

2st

t(90.99) = 1.40, p = 0.164, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.24)

ras_reliance

1st

t(67.46) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.81)

2st

t(89.15) = 1.36, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.78)

ras_domination

1st

t(79.38) = -1.96, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-2.21 to 0.02)

2st

t(90.49) = 0.33, p = 0.743, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.70)

symptom

1st

t(64.35) = 0.05, p = 0.958, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-4.80 to 5.06)

2st

t(83.35) = 0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-5.42 to 5.44)

slof_work

1st

t(65.54) = -0.24, p = 0.815, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.75 to 2.17)

2st

t(86.32) = -1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-4.23 to 1.31)

slof_relationship

1st

t(67.98) = 0.24, p = 0.814, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.64 to 3.35)

2st

t(89.62) = 0.54, p = 0.592, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.55 to 4.45)

satisfaction

1st

t(72.65) = 1.57, p = 0.120, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.71 to 6.00)

2st

t(91.00) = 0.44, p = 0.659, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.22 to 5.06)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(68.34) = 0.45, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.27)

2st

t(89.89) = -0.77, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.34)

mhc_social

1st

t(72.04) = -0.46, p = 0.648, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-3.28 to 2.05)

2st

t(90.99) = -1.22, p = 0.225, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-5.29 to 1.26)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(70.46) = 0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.46 to 3.81)

2st

t(90.80) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.22 to 2.33)

resilisnce

1st

t(68.13) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.75)

2st

t(89.74) = 0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.29)

social_provision

1st

t(71.27) = 0.78, p = 0.435, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.06)

2st

t(90.93) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.65)

els_value_living

1st

t(70.11) = 1.31, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.50 to 2.44)

2st

t(90.71) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.25)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(70.57) = 2.64, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.23, 95% CI (0.49 to 3.51)

2st

t(90.82) = 1.17, p = 0.246, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.89)

els

1st

t(68.73) = 2.24, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (0.32 to 5.62)

2st

t(90.14) = 1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.50 to 4.75)

social_connect

1st

t(65.65) = -0.22, p = 0.824, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-5.13 to 4.10)

2st

t(86.54) = -0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-6.22 to 4.18)

shs_agency

1st

t(69.83) = 1.21, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.91 to 3.75)

2st

t(90.63) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.13 to 4.45)

shs_pathway

1st

t(67.29) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.89)

2st

t(88.97) = 0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.44)

shs

1st

t(67.67) = 1.26, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.44 to 6.34)

2st

t(89.35) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-2.48 to 6.55)

esteem

1st

t(90.81) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.48)

2st

t(90.97) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.30 to 0.40)

mlq_search

1st

t(76.87) = -0.22, p = 0.826, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.94 to 1.55)

2st

t(90.70) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.48 to 2.00)

mlq_presence

1st

t(74.93) = -0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.77)

2st

t(90.88) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.71 to 2.42)

mlq

1st

t(75.47) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.87 to 2.97)

2st

t(90.83) = -0.18, p = 0.859, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.72 to 3.95)

empower

1st

t(68.58) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.44 to 2.66)

2st

t(90.05) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.65 to 2.17)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(81.70) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.56)

2st

t(90.38) = -0.43, p = 0.669, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.35)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(69.16) = -2.28, p = 0.026, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.57 to -0.23)

2st

t(90.37) = -0.41, p = 0.686, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.57)

sss_affective

1st

t(66.62) = -1.30, p = 0.199, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.19 to 0.68)

2st

t(88.16) = -1.90, p = 0.061, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-4.32 to 0.10)

sss_behavior

1st

t(67.69) = -1.68, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.60 to 0.31)

2st

t(89.37) = -1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.26)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(66.04) = -0.63, p = 0.531, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.69 to 1.40)

2st

t(87.25) = -1.97, p = 0.052, Cohen d = 1.35, 95% CI (-4.62 to 0.02)

sss

1st

t(65.25) = -1.29, p = 0.202, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-9.05 to 1.95)

2st

t(85.69) = -2.10, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-12.65 to -0.34)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(44.11) = 0.94, p = 0.701, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(40.65) = 0.69, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.73)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(35.92) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.40)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(34.75) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(36.17) = 1.14, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.81)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.15) = 2.30, p = 0.055, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.86)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(39.71) = 1.59, p = 0.239, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.82)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(32.83) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.17 to 1.56)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.33) = -2.00, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(34.38) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.50 to 1.28)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(36.45) = -0.67, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.42 to 1.72)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(34.54) = -0.96, p = 0.683, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.76 to 0.62)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(36.17) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.15 to 1.86)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(35.47) = -1.04, p = 0.606, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-3.36 to 1.08)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(34.44) = 1.00, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.12)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(35.82) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.93)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(35.31) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.17)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(35.51) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.29)

els

1st vs 2st

t(34.71) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.09)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.38) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.59)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(35.19) = 0.78, p = 0.877, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.23)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.08) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.97)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(34.24) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.91 to 2.90)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(49.45) = 0.78, p = 0.875, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.99)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(38.43) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.42)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(37.50) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.54 to 1.80)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(37.75) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.82 to 2.88)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(34.64) = -1.10, p = 0.561, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.05 to 0.61)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(40.97) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(34.89) = 0.98, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.65)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(33.80) = -1.51, p = 0.282, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.95 to 0.29)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(34.25) = -1.13, p = 0.530, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.89 to 0.54)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(33.55) = -1.43, p = 0.326, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.34)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.21) = -1.63, p = 0.227, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-5.17 to 0.58)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(47.65) = 0.74, p = 0.924, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(43.21) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.30)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(37.16) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.49)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(35.68) = -2.31, p = 0.053, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-1.57 to -0.10)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(37.47) = -1.37, p = 0.361, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.11 to 0.41)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(34.93) = 0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(42.00) = -0.99, p = 0.658, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.56)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(33.27) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.27 to 1.90)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(33.90) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.32)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(35.21) = -1.19, p = 0.486, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.26 to 0.85)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(37.83) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.66)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(35.41) = 1.08, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.99)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(37.48) = 1.17, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.43)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(36.58) = 0.82, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.43 to 3.39)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(35.29) = 0.71, p = 0.966, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.08)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(37.04) = -0.72, p = 0.951, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.75)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(36.39) = 1.14, p = 0.525, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.74)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(36.64) = 1.99, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.31)

els

1st vs 2st

t(35.62) = 1.82, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.19 to 3.59)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(33.96) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.32)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(36.23) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.13)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(34.84) = 0.97, p = 0.680, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.64 to 1.80)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(35.04) = 0.71, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.53)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.39) = 1.59, p = 0.236, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.36)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(40.37) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.67 to 1.59)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(39.17) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.82)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(39.50) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-3.12 to 3.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(35.54) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.58)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(43.63) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.89)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(35.86) = -1.60, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.17 to 0.25)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(34.48) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.24)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(35.05) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.02)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(34.16) = 1.40, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.10)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(33.74) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.78)

Plot

Clinical significance